Sometimes we read a decision in favor of the defense that makes it seem like getting the good result was easy. The court summarily disposes of plaintiff’s arguments, adopts the defendant’s reasoning, and might throw in a comment or two about things the plaintiff could have done—but didn’t. But getting those good results is almost never easy. The result is usually a reflection of good lawyering, hard work, and attention to detail (and of course, even with all those things plus favorable law, the client still may not get the result it deserves). Today’s decision, Giddens v. Tift Reg’l Health Sys., 2026 WL 555070 (M.D. Ga. Feb. 27, 2026), reads like it was easy, but we suspect that was because of the work that went into it by defense counsel. So, as we roll into our observance of the Memorial Day holiday and perhaps look forward to some legitimate “easy living” over the weekend, we’ll tip our hats to our friends and colleagues who do the diligent work on behalf of their clients.  

Giddens involves a hip resurfacing system that plaintiffs claimed was defective. Plaintiffs filed suit in Georgia state court against the manufacturer, the implanting physician, and hospital. The defendant manufacturer removed the case on the basis of fraudulent joinder. In starting its analysis, the court noted the relatively high bar required of a removing defendant who claims other defendants are fraudulently joined (the burden is a “heavy one”).  The court then turned to the substantive claims against the physician and hospital: negligent failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, and fraud.

Starting with negligent failure to warn, the court recognized that the implanting physician and hospital only had a duty to warn “if either had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged defects in the design and manufacturer of the hip system.” Id. at *3.  The complaint did not allege that the doctor or hospital had such knowledge. Instead, plaintiffs alleged that the manufacturer was under a duty to disclose the alleged defects in the hip system, but that it “fraudulently concealed the danger.” Id. Even when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the complaint suggested that neither the physician nor hospital had any knowledge of the alleged defects. That might have been enough to defeat remand, but the manufacturer went further and obtained an affidavit from the president and CEO of the hospital swearing that the hospital did not have knowledge of the alleged defect or any recall of the hip system prior to its implant. Plaintiffs did not present any rebuttal evidence or otherwise raise an inference that the hospital or implanting physician had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged defect. Without that, the hospital and physician did not have a duty to warn, and plaintiffs did not state a viable claim against them. Win for the manufacturer on fraudulent joinder under the negligent failure to warn claim.

Next up were the fraudulent concealment and fraud claims. Without actual or constructive knowledge of an alleged defect, it would be pretty hard either to fraudulently conceal it or commit fraud. Again, the allegations in the complaint undercut plaintiffs’ efforts to avoid federal court. The complaint alleged that the manufacturer had a duty to disclose:

to plaintiffs and the medical community the defective nature of the hip resurfacing products because it was in a superior position to know the quality, safety and efficacy of the such [sic] products. Defendant instead fraudulently concealed the danger of the such [sic] devices by underreporting adverse events for the system in question, delaying reporting of adverse events, and categorizing them in a way that hid the dangers of this product.

Id. at *4. These allegations indicated that the hospital and implanting physician did not have knowledge of the alleged defects. And the affidavit from the hospital’s president and CEO reinforced that conclusion. Plaintiffs didn’t allege any actual knowledge on the part of the hospital or physician, and they didn’t rebut the hospital’s affidavit. No knowledge, then no fraud or fraudulent concealment. Win again for the manufacturer on fraudulent joinder.

That left amount in controversy. In support of its argument that it met the $75,000 threshold for federal jurisdiction, the manufacturer relied on both the language in the complaint and an affidavit from one of its attorneys that included a list of plaintiff’s medical providers and medical expenses. The total amount of medical expenses included in the affidavit was over $80,000. Combined with the allegations in the complaint about “severe illness and injury” and the claim for punitive damages, the court held the amount in controversy requirement was satisfied. Plaintiffs argued that the court should not “speculate” about damages, but the court made short work of that, noting that it could use “reasonable deductions, reasonable inferences, or other reasonable extrapolations,” and that such reasoning is not speculation but a fair and reasonable inference. Id. at *6.

The court dismissed the hospital and physician based on fraudulent joinder and denied plaintiffs’ motion to remand. Congratulations to our friends at Nelson Mullins on the good work. We hope everyone enjoys the Memorial Day weekend.